Klaplunk Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 Hello, I'm going to prove God exists and in the process disprove science. Whether you believe this is up to you, I don't wish to place my beliefs on anyone. Existence is composed of opposites existing between opposites - everything in existence follows these rules. A singularity does exist however, and it comes in the form of a black hole - this is what makes everything 'tick' so to speak. An example can be achieved through numbers; where 0 = opposite/duality and 1 = singularity. Although 1/singularity cannot exist on its own, it can exist between opposites, as the black hole proves so well. 0 = Opposite 000 010 = Opposite 000 The God in the bible is interpreted wrong; I can safely say this because I'm wise and can see the truth. God represents 'time', and 'space' + 'matter' are factors of time. The offspring/child that God creates is 'light' - therefore Jesus has to be 'light'. Light walks on water, and doesn't drown, and it dies/ceases to exist daily, and then re-appears. Gods son (sun). Science is inevitably a product of how we as humans interpret the world/universe(oneverse) around us. E=mc^2 is a formula to explain energy, and that formula is man-made. If I asked you to forget a word in your head, could you do it? You couldn't, that's because word/academa is a virus. Education has taught you to interpret any word that is more than two letters as its definition. The bible is essentially algebra, at least Genesis1. So God is time, therefore Space + Matter, and his son (Jesus) is light. Therefore God does exist, the 'educated God' doesn't exist, that's because you're not meant to know this . Questions?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 Existence is composed of opposites existing between opposites - everything in existence follows these rules. Is there any particular reason everything must follow these rules?
Klaplunk Posted July 24, 2010 Author Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) If one of the rules ceased to exist then everything else goes under aswell. Also, I believe that using this symbol for pi - 'n' Ein + 1 = n Funny how that looks remarkably like Einstien lewl. Edited July 24, 2010 by Klaplunk
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 If one of the rules ceased to exist then everything else goes under aswell. Why?
Klaplunk Posted July 24, 2010 Author Posted July 24, 2010 If there was no space, there would be no matter, and vice versa. If there was no up there would be no down. If there was no left eye, there would be no right eye.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 Okay. Suppose there was space and matter, up and down, so on and so on.... but there was only a left eye? What would happen?
Klaplunk Posted July 24, 2010 Author Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) Impossible, if there was only a left eye it wouldn't be the left eye, it would just be an eye, but an eye connects at two halves. So that eye would have a left and right side. What creature has one eye, naturally, by the way? Edited July 24, 2010 by Klaplunk
Sayonara Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 You can't prove god or disprove science by rattling off a bunch of assertions.
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 What creature has one eye, naturally, by the way? Cyclops
Klaplunk Posted July 24, 2010 Author Posted July 24, 2010 Cyclops Man-made image, like the word used to describe it. I should be expecting a headshot soon right? Faster than JFK.
Sayonara Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 No, cyclops is a genus of crustacean. Guess why they are called cyclops. 1
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 Man-made image, like the word used to describe it. I should be expecting a headshot soon right? Faster than JFK. Boom..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclops_(genus) 1
Klaplunk Posted July 24, 2010 Author Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) If one side of the red line ceased to exist, so would the other. My point still stands. Impossible, if there was only a left eye it wouldn't be the left eye, it would just be an eye, but an eye connects at two halves. So that eye would have a left and right side. Edited July 24, 2010 by Klaplunk
Sayonara Posted July 24, 2010 Posted July 24, 2010 Unless I pulled out your left eye and then removed all other matter and energy from the universe.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 My left eye wouldn't exist through human or other application. It's not like I was born with just a left side, cause if I was, I wouldn't exist. I was born a 'whole' human - not half a human, that's impossible. IF Ein +1 = n What about? E=MC^2
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 My left eye wouldn't exist through human or other application. It's not like I was born with just a left side, cause if I was, I wouldn't exist. Yes, but you don't necessarily have to be born with only a left side. We can just remove the right side ex post facto. Your left eye is still your left eye even after it has been removed and the right one destroyed. It's not recommended to reason by strangling conditional analogies in a bathtub full of word soup.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) If one side of the red line ceased to exist, so would the other. My point still stands. Yes but that is only bilateral symmetry... There are other patterns of symmetry.... you have no point.... Edited July 25, 2010 by Moontanman
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 Yes, but you don't necessarily have to be born with only a left side. We can just remove the right side ex post facto. 'We' Ein +1 = n What about? E=MC^2
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 You can't prove god or disprove science by rattling off a bunch of assertions. Reasoning or GTFO.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 I don't understand how you don't understand my reasoning. I have 2 genetically opposite sides. Heck.. My chromosomes are even dualities. I have a inside and outside... I can look forwards and backwards... I have a top and bottom. What more reasoning do I need?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 As David Hume says in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance. Let the course of things be allowed hitherto ever so regular; that alone, without some new argument or inference, proves not that, for the future, it will continue so. In vain do you pretend to have learned the nature of bodies from your past experience. A past pattern does not guarantee future behavior. You cannot say "everything I can think of follows these rules" and use that to conclude "everything in existence must follow these rules" because inductive arguments do not work. You must deductively establish that your rules are necessary.
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 I don't understand how you don't understand my reasoning. I have 2 genetically opposite sides. Heck.. My chromosomes are even dualities. I have a inside and outside... I can look forwards and backwards... I have a top and bottom. What more reasoning do I need? Well, some understanding of diametrics would be an advantage. You could then use this to explain why your assertions are borne out in the real world.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 Without a Past there would be no Future. Without the Sky there would be no Land. Without the right side of my computer screen, there would be no left I can't give any more reasoning. To me, this is enough reason - as I said at the start, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you - it's entirely up to you. This is the case, so... personally, God exists, and my reasons I've explained - calling religion dumb/wrong shouldn't be so easy now, because I've explained as to why some may believe in God.
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Without a Past there would be no Future. Singularity says otherwise. Without the Sky there would be no Land. Except on bodies with no atmosphere. Without the right side of my computer screen, there would be no left My angle grinder begs to differ. I can't give any more reasoning. You haven't started yet. As I said, all you have provided are assertions. The plural of assertion is not 'reasoning'. To me, this is enough reason - as I said at the start, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you - it's entirely up to you. This is the case, so... personally, God exists, and my reasons I've explained - calling religion dumb/wrong shouldn't be so easy now, because I've explained as to why some may believe in God. Religion isn't being called dumb and or wrong - your explanation is. 1
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 Damn, I've been up every night for the last six months trying to prove God exists. I put more effort into this than I do into living life - I enjoy this voyage and I'll continue it alongside education; however, I take this more serious than the propaganda books I'm told is true.
Recommended Posts